If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Odd. A number are not from the Sahiihaan (Bukhari, Muslim) of the Sunnis. Shi'ites for the most part would reject them.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I don't think the number has any specific meaning. I think the intention was to keep to a small number that make it easy for people to memorize the hadiths, while being enough to contain the basic of the Religion.

The compiler, Imam Nawawi, also has made an excellent collection that contains, I think, two thousand hadiths called Riyadh as-Saliheen (the garden of the righteous).

Odd. A number are not from the Sahiihaan (Bukhari, Muslim) of the Sunnis. Shi'ites for the most part would reject them.

Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are not the only books containing Authetic hadtihs, they are just considered the most authentic. All of the hadiths in the collection are considered authentic.

As for shi'is, they hardly accept anyting from what we consider to be authentic as they rject hadiths by such people as Abu Huraira, Umar and Aisha (radiya llahu 'anhum), who have narrated the majority of authentic hadiths.

Hadith number 8 definitely requires a thread on its own. Neither does giving three entirely different interpretations of the hadith in any way explain it nor can it in any way be related to Orthodoxy.

is there not a verse in the Quran (possibly by Muhammed, but I may be mistaken) where it is quoted saying something along the lines of "now that we have returned from a lesser Jihad [battle], it is time to focus on the greater Jihad [spiritual]"? No one denies that jihad is of a personal struggle between one who submits to God and God himself, but from what I understand, there is also a physical, destructive element to jihad also.

Logged

Христе Боже, Распети и Свети!

"In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope." Saint Justin Popovic

Hadith number 8 definitely requires a thread on its own. Neither does giving three entirely different interpretations of the hadith in any way explain it nor can it in any way be related to Orthodoxy.

is there not a verse in the Quran (possibly by Muhammed, but I may be mistaken) where it is quoted saying something along the lines of "now that we have returned from a lesser Jihad [battle], it is time to focus on the greater Jihad [spiritual]"? No one denies that jihad is of a personal struggle between one who submits to God and God himself, but from what I understand, there is also a physical, destructive element to jihad also.

No matter how you'd interpret the hadith, you can't suggest that it requires individuals to be fought until they convert as the Quranic verses, the hadiths and historical evidence are clear that organized religious minorities are to be given the freedom of worship, as long as their any effective temporal power is taken away from them and they submit to the Islamic state (which what the Hadith probably means).

As you may know, Jerusalem and the rest of the Levant, which were predominantly Christian, were conquered by Mar (RA), the Prophet's companion and the third Caliph, and Christians there were granted the freedom to worship and their churches were protected.

The internal struggle (internal jihad), is the most essential concept in Islam, but struggle against physical enemy is necessary nevertheless.

Is it correct that the expansion and spreading of Islam is deemed appropriate through physical means, other than peaceful? For ex. the lesser jihad?

Yes, that's what I meant.

Islam was spread both martially and peacefully. Both are accepted. But remember that we're talking about fighting armies, not individuals. Armies and states are forced to submit to the Islamic governance, but individuals are not forced to embrace Islam, especially those who adhere to organized religions, mainly Judaism and Christianity.

Is it correct that the expansion and spreading of Islam is deemed appropriate through physical means, other than peaceful? For ex. the lesser jihad?

Yes, that's what I meant.

Islam was spread both martially and peacefully. Both are accepted

And going back to your original post, there is one discrepancy so far between Islam and Orthodoxy

Well, there's not a consensus that pacifism is the Orthodox stance on warfare. Like I said, in the other thread, if it was not for war and armies to both protect Christianity and to propagate it, it would've practically disappeared.

Is it correct that the expansion and spreading of Islam is deemed appropriate through physical means, other than peaceful? For ex. the lesser jihad?

Yes, that's what I meant.

Islam was spread both martially and peacefully. Both are accepted. But remember that we're talking about fighting armies, not individuals. Armies and states are forced to submit to the Islamic governance, but individuals are not forced to embrace Islam, especially those who adhere to organized religions, mainly Judaism and Christianity.

So an Islamic nation could be justified in attacking another nation, in order to convert that nation to Islam?

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Is it correct that the expansion and spreading of Islam is deemed appropriate through physical means, other than peaceful? For ex. the lesser jihad?

Yes, that's what I meant.

Islam was spread both martially and peacefully. Both are accepted. But remember that we're talking about fighting armies, not individuals. Armies and states are forced to submit to the Islamic governance, but individuals are not forced to embrace Islam, especially those who adhere to organized religions, mainly Judaism and Christianity.

So an Islamic nation could be justified in attacking another nation, in order to convert that nation to Islam?

Not to convert it, but to eliminate its threat as a military force, which also makes it more likely for the population to convert, if they wish to of course.

As you may know, Jerusalem and the rest of the Levant, which were predominantly Christian, were conquered by Mar (RA), the Prophet's companion and the third Caliph, and Christians there were granted the freedom to worship and their churches were protected.

You say "conquered", but I say "invaded" although we are talking about the same incident.

I see that you tend to interpret invasions as nice incidents if the invaders let the original owners of a land practice their former religion (with restrictions though). Would you like the USA "conquer" Mecca and then grant Muslims the freedom to worship there in their preserved mosques? Not in the Cube though. That would be turned into a Christian shrine in accordance with the Islamic policy turning the biggest place of worship into a mosque after the "conquest". (Hagia Sophia is an example).

As you may know, Jerusalem and the rest of the Levant, which were predominantly Christian, were conquered by Mar (RA), the Prophet's companion and the third Caliph, and Christians there were granted the freedom to worship and their churches were protected.

You say "conquered", but I say "invaded" although we are talking about the same incident.

I see that you tend to interpret invasions as nice incidents if the invaders let the original owners of a land practice their former religion (with restrictions though). Would you like the USA "conquer" Mecca and then grant Muslims the freedom to worship there in their preserved mosques? Not in the Cube though. That would be turned into a Christian shrine in accordance with the Islamic policy turning the biggest place of worship into a mosque after the "conquest". (Hagia Sophia is an example).

No, I wouldn't like it, and because we don't expect you to like it and because we know that you would take any chance you can get to dectroy the Islamic rule or to just screw it over is why we put those limitation and keep the various religious minorities under check.

That's why I said in the "Jesus descends" thread that the Dhimma system is more than fair.

The crux of the matter is that there is no objective right for a culture to exist in acertain space just because it existed there for a while, so there's nothing objectively wrong with conquering any place by any one.

No, I wouldn't like it, and because we don't expect you to like it and because we know that you would take any chance you can get to dectroy the Islamic rule or to just screw it over is why we put those limitation and keep the various religious minorities under check.

You put those limitations not because your governments are clever, but because you follow your prophet, who wanted Islam to be the only dominant religion in the world. This is the real motive for the subjugation of the nations of other faiths.

The most important thing is that no matter what you do (even getting the aid of demons in your war against Christ and His Church), Christ will prevail against your false prophet. Bad news for you.

The crux of the matter is that there is no objective right for a culture to exist in acertain space just because it existed there for a while, so there's nothing objectively wrong with conquering any place by any one.

I did not say that. Last time you were talking about religion, but now you have suddenly started to talk about "culture".

You put those limitations not because your governments are clever, but because you follow your prophet, who wanted Islam to be the only dominant religion in the world. This is the real motive for the subjugation of the nations of other faiths.

The most important thing is that no matter what you do (even getting the aid of demons in your war against Christ and His Church), Christ will prevail against your false prophet. Bad news for you.

Of course we follow the best of Creation, Mohammed, may the Almighty resurrect us by His side. The blessed Sunna is the second source of legislation after the Quran, so every Muslim is obliged to follow the best of man kind. You should understand that, you follow Christ, his disciples and the saints. As a Christian, you can't have an objective objection against dogma.

But even from a purely political point of view, both attack and defence are necessary, which is something I would gladly elaborate on if your excellence wills it.

Quote

I did not say that. Last time you were talking about religion, but now you have suddenly started to talk about "culture".

Of course we follow the best of Creation, Mohammed, may the Almighty resurrect us by His side. The blessed Sunna is the second source of legislation after the Quran, so every Muslim is obliged to follow the best of man kind. You should understand that, you follow Christ, his disciples and the saints. As a Christian, you can't have an objective objection against dogma.

I fail to understand your point here. Could you please clarify yourself?

We follow Christ. So did the Apostles and the saints.

Can you have an objection against the dogma? For instance, can you say you will remain a Muslim even if you deny faith in the existence of angels?

Is it correct that the expansion and spreading of Islam is deemed appropriate through physical means, other than peaceful? For ex. the lesser jihad?

Yes, that's what I meant.

Islam was spread both martially and peacefully. Both are accepted. But remember that we're talking about fighting armies, not individuals. Armies and states are forced to submit to the Islamic governance, but individuals are not forced to embrace Islam, especially those who adhere to organized religions, mainly Judaism and Christianity.

So an Islamic nation could be justified in attacking another nation, in order to convert that nation to Islam?

Not to convert it, but to eliminate its threat as a military force, which also makes it more likely for the population to convert, if they wish to of course.

What if a non-Islamic nation that had a large military force, existed next door to an Islamic nation, but there was peace between the two nations. Would the Islamic nation be required to build up its military and eventually eliminate the potential threat of the other nation, even though the two nations are currently at peace?

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Is it correct that the expansion and spreading of Islam is deemed appropriate through physical means, other than peaceful? For ex. the lesser jihad?

Yes, that's what I meant.

Islam was spread both martially and peacefully. Both are accepted. But remember that we're talking about fighting armies, not individuals. Armies and states are forced to submit to the Islamic governance, but individuals are not forced to embrace Islam, especially those who adhere to organized religions, mainly Judaism and Christianity.

So an Islamic nation could be justified in attacking another nation, in order to convert that nation to Islam?

Not to convert it, but to eliminate its threat as a military force, which also makes it more likely for the population to convert, if they wish to of course.

What if a non-Islamic nation that had a large military force, existed next door to an Islamic nation, but there was peace between the two nations. Would the Islamic nation be required to build up its military and eventually eliminate the potential threat of the other nation, even though the two nations are currently at peace?

Yes, a pace treaty can be signed, but Muslims must always be ready for any change of events.

Hadith number 8 definitely requires a thread on its own. Neither does giving three entirely different interpretations of the hadith in any way explain it nor can it in any way be related to Orthodoxy.

is there not a verse in the Quran (possibly by Muhammed, but I may be mistaken) where it is quoted saying something along the lines of "now that we have returned from a lesser Jihad [battle], it is time to focus on the greater Jihad [spiritual]"? No one denies that jihad is of a personal struggle between one who submits to God and God himself, but from what I understand, there is also a physical, destructive element to jihad also.

No matter how you'd interpret the hadith, you can't suggest that it requires individuals to be fought until they convert as the Quranic verses, the hadiths and historical evidence are clear that organized religious minorities are to be given the freedom of worship

Besides the plain language issue, hadith historical evidence are clear that organized religious minorities are denied the freedom of worship.

Quote

, as long as their any effective temporal power is taken away from them and they submit to the Islamic state (which what the Hadith probably means).

As you may know, Jerusalem and the rest of the Levant, which were predominantly Christian, were conquered by Mar (RA), the Prophet's companion and the third Caliph, and Christians there were granted the freedom to worship and their churches were protected.

'Umar also persecuted the Arab Christians and when Arab Christian tribes went into exile into the Roman Empire, he demanded their extradition.

Quote

The internal struggle (internal jihad), is the most essential concept in Islam, but struggle against physical enemy is necessary nevertheless.

Because as mufti and president Izzetbegovich taught, the first duty of a Muslim in a non-Muslim state is to work for the implimentation of shari'ah.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Is it correct that the expansion and spreading of Islam is deemed appropriate through physical means, other than peaceful? For ex. the lesser jihad?

Yes, that's what I meant.

Islam was spread both martially and peacefully. Both are accepted

And going back to your original post, there is one discrepancy so far between Islam and Orthodoxy

Well, there's not a consensus that pacifism is the Orthodox stance on warfare. Like I said, in the other thread, if it was not for war and armies to both protect Christianity and to propagate it, it would've practically disappeared.

LOL. And how, pray tell, did we survive the first three centuries when it was a capital offense the world over to confess Christ? And for Orthodoxy, that it spread in Alaska AFTER the Czar's army left and it rebounded during communism. In communist China, Christianity has continued to grow despite the repression of it. Then there is that issue of the Muslims in Africa and Indonesia coming to the church, all without benefit of an army.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

You put those limitations not because your governments are clever, but because you follow your prophet, who wanted Islam to be the only dominant religion in the world. This is the real motive for the subjugation of the nations of other faiths.

The most important thing is that no matter what you do (even getting the aid of demons in your war against Christ and His Church), Christ will prevail against your false prophet. Bad news for you.

Of course we follow the best of Creation, Mohammed, may the Almighty resurrect us by His side. The blessed Sunna is the second source of legislation after the Quran, so every Muslim is obliged to follow the best of man kind. You should understand that, you follow Christ, his disciples and the saints. As a Christian, you can't have an objective objection against dogma.

We don't. Just against false dogma.

Take for instance, the claim that Muhammad makes that he is the prophet the Christians are waiting for. The problem is, we are not waiting for any "Prophet." Nor have we for two thousand years. We know that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. The Jews deny that, but you see in their services, their Talmud, their rituals, prayers, creeds etc. that they are still waiting for the Messiah. If Muhammad were some prophet "Ahmad" that Christ predicted, we would still be waiting and say so, because we cannot accept Muhammad's claims.

« Last Edit: July 11, 2010, 10:16:46 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Is it correct that the expansion and spreading of Islam is deemed appropriate through physical means, other than peaceful? For ex. the lesser jihad?

Yes, that's what I meant.

Islam was spread both martially and peacefully. Both are accepted. But remember that we're talking about fighting armies, not individuals. Armies and states are forced to submit to the Islamic governance, but individuals are not forced to embrace Islam, especially those who adhere to organized religions, mainly Judaism and Christianity.

So an Islamic nation could be justified in attacking another nation, in order to convert that nation to Islam?

Not to convert it, but to eliminate its threat as a military force, which also makes it more likely for the population to convert, if they wish to of course.

What if a non-Islamic nation that had a large military force, existed next door to an Islamic nation, but there was peace between the two nations. Would the Islamic nation be required to build up its military and eventually eliminate the potential threat of the other nation, even though the two nations are currently at peace?

Yes, because Islam is the religion of peace, or rather pacification. LOL.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Besides the plain language issue, Eadith historical evidence are clear that organized religious minorities are denied the freedom of worship.

So if Islam doesn't give the freedom of worship, and Muslims historically didn't give this freedom, then it's safe for me to assume that you don't exist, since you are an Arab Christian, neither do Christians exist in the Balkans (including Greece).

Quote

'Mar also persecuted the Arab Christians and when Arab Christian tribes went into exile into the Roman Empire, he demanded their extradition.

Define what you mean by prosecution, because, judging from the "also", it seems that you recognize the fact that Sardinia Mar (RA) granted the Christians the freedom of Worship, even though you denied that in the first paragraph. And concerning the Romans, didn't the Orthodox used to say "Better the Sultan's turban than the pope's cap?

Quote

Because as mufti and president Izzetbegovich, the first duty of a Muslim in a non-Muslim state is to work for the implimentation of shari'ah.

That's because of what?

Anyway, Muslims ought to implement Sharia in Islamic countries before trying to do so in other places.

LOL. And how, pray tell, did we survive the first three centuries when it was a capital offense the world over to confess Christ? And for Orthodoxy, that it spread in Alaska AFTER the Czar's army left and it rebounded during communism. In communist China, Christianity has continued to grow despite the repression of it. Then there is that issue of the Muslims in Africa and Indonesia coming to the church, all without benefit of an army.

If it wasn't for Christians' non pacifism, Aeven if Christianity could've survived until the arrival of Islam, all of the Christian countries would've been Islamized, and as a result Christianity wouldn't have reached America, sub-saharian Africa or Eastern Asia.

Take for instance, the claim that Muhammad makes that he is the prophet the Christians are waiting for. The problem is, we are not waiting for any "Prophet." Nor have we for two thousand years. We know that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. The Jews deny that, but you see in their services, their Talmud, their rituals, prayers, creeds etc. that they are still waiting for the Messiah. If Muhammad were some prophet "Ahmad" that Christ predicted, we would still be waiting and say so, because we cannot accept Muhammad's claims.

Does that have anything to do with discussion, because I fail to see any. Perhaps you can clear things up.

Yes, because Islam is the religion of peace, or rather pacification. LOL.

No one is claiming that Islam is the religion of peace, or a pacifist religion or anything to that effect, at least no one whose opinion is considerable. Islam is the religion of justice, and justice requires violence (i.e. war and corporal punishment) in certain times as it requires peace in other times.

Yes, because Islam is the religion of peace, or rather pacification. LOL.

No one is claiming that Islam is the religion of peace, or a pacifist religion or anything to that effect, at least no one whose opinion is considerable. Islam is the religion of justice, and justice requires violence (i.e. war and corporal punishment) in certain times as it requires peace in other times.

And if someone disagrees with your sense of "justice," apply violence liberally.

Is lying justice? Yet the Quran accuses the Jews of saying that Ezra is the Son of God, the way Christians (it calls us "Nazarenes") Jesus is the Son of God. We all do that, always have for the last 2 millenia, always the Lord willing, always will. The Jews never have said the same about Ezra, and are puzzzled when you ask them about this. So much about "that book in which there is no doubt" (The Cow).

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Take for instance, the claim that Muhammad makes that he is the prophet the Christians are waiting for. The problem is, we are not waiting for any "Prophet." Nor have we for two thousand years. We know that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. The Jews deny that, but you see in their services, their Talmud, their rituals, prayers, creeds etc. that they are still waiting for the Messiah. If Muhammad were some prophet "Ahmad" that Christ predicted, we would still be waiting and say so, because we cannot accept Muhammad's claims.

Does that have anything to do with discussion, because I fail to see any. Perhaps you can clear things up.

Brining Truth and imposing falsehood are not the same thing.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

LOL. And how, pray tell, did we survive the first three centuries when it was a capital offense the world over to confess Christ? And for Orthodoxy, that it spread in Alaska AFTER the Czar's army left and it rebounded during communism. In communist China, Christianity has continued to grow despite the repression of it. Then there is that issue of the Muslims in Africa and Indonesia coming to the church, all without benefit of an army.

If it wasn't for Christians' non pacifism, Aeven if Christianity could've survived until the arrival of Islam, all of the Christian countries would've been Islamized, and as a result Christianity wouldn't have reached America, sub-saharian Africa or Eastern Asia.

LOL. Wrong on all counts. The Church had spread to India, where it had no army, and spread to Ethiopia without an army (where it later got an army) and among the Rus', where it also had no army at that point. The Prince of All Rus, St. Vladimir, accepted baptism from the patriarch of Constantinople AFTER defeating the Emperor. The Chinese Orthodox Church started when the Chinese Emeperor defeated the Czar's soliders and brought them back to Peking. Orthodoxy came to America by a Virginian converted by translating out services, and the Church came from trade, and spread AFTER the Czar recalled his army and the US army set up a military regime which tried to stamp out the Orthodox Church there.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

And if someone disagrees with your sense of "justice," apply violence liberally.

Yes, because if were to apply a law on someone only if he agrees with it, then we will be living in the very definition of anarchy.

Quote

Is lying justice? Yet the Quran accuses the Jews of saying that Ezra is the Son of God, the way Christians (it calls us "Nazarenes") Jesus is the Son of God. We all do that, always have for the last 2 millenia, always the Lord willing, always will. The Jews never have said the same about Ezra, and are puzzzled when you ask them about this. So much about "that book in which there is no doubt" (The Cow).

And you say Christ is Jesus, yet Jews say nope. You also say that the trinity is Biblical and they say nope again and they call you heatens and they wouldn't eat from a plate you ate from.

LOL. Wrong on all counts. The Church had spread to India, where it had no army, and spread to Ethiopia without an army (where it later got an army) and among the Rus', where it also had no army at that point. The Prince of All Rus, St. Vladimir, accepted baptism from the patriarch of Constantinople AFTER defeating the Emperor. The Chinese Orthodox Church started when the Chinese Emeperor defeated the Czar's soliders and brought them back to Peking. Orthodoxy came to America by a Virginian converted by translating out services, and the Church came from trade, and spread AFTER the Czar recalled his army and the US army set up a military regime which tried to stamp out the Orthodox Church there.

That's far, far from what I was talking about. The fact that Christianity was spread to certain places without forces wouldn't have stopped it from being reduced to the the religious of few communities scattered around the near East and Europe by the hand of Muslim.

Likewise, the fact that the early Meccan and Medinian Muslims converted with no martial intervention whatsoever, as it was the case with the Turkic people (who would be came later the source of our pride and the crown over our heads), Indonesians, a lot of Africans and many other peoples, this fact wouldn't be a good argument for us if we were to claim that Islam would've survived has it held a pacifist stance.

Besides the plain language issue, Eadith historical evidence are clear that organized religious minorities are denied the freedom of worship.

So if Islam doesn't give the freedom of worship, and Muslims historically didn't give this freedom, then it's safe for me to assume that you don't exist, since you are an Arab Christian, neither do Christians exist in the Balkans (including Greece).

I have a Cross tattooed on my wrist (a common Coptic custom, but I'm not Copt but Syro-Egyptian) but I've bragged about someone's else's who is Copt.

Wow! Very impressive & Beautiful pictures. Is it common for Coptic Christians in the U.S to have tatoos?

Not so much, but some do. In the 80s and 90s there was a revival of sorts of it in Egypt.

The Copts had their hands branded with a cross when they paid their jizya poll tax when the Muslims came and set up their governance of Egypt, they extracted the jizya, and used to brand your hand to show you paid (it also marked you for lynching). When the muslims stopped doing it, the Copts started, of their own volition, tattoo themselves on the hand with a cross, usually at a pilgrimage (I got mine at Zaytoun, after going to Jerusalem). I remember once buying a kufiyah. While I was looking at it, the shop owner saw my tattoo and asked me if I was Christian. When I replied yes, it told me "half price."

A Copt showing me his Cross pointed out "the muslims here, some are from Saudi Arabia. They are a foreigner here. Some their grandfather was Copt but converted. They belong here, but they are weak. My grandfather and his grandfather [pointing to the Cross on his own hand] were strong. This is the proof that they were strong. Ever since the time of the Apostles, every generation until today, my ancestors were willing to die for this. I am willing to die for this." Not an empty fear in Egypt nowadays.

+

Ἐν τούτῳ νίκαIn hoc signo vinces IN THIS SIGN CONQUER

We exist because the Lord had promised us "the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against My Church."

Quote

Quote

'Mar also persecuted the Arab Christians and when Arab Christian tribes went into exile into the Roman Empire, he demanded their extradition.

Define what you mean by prosecution, because, judging from the "also", it seems that you recognize the fact that Sardinia Mar (RA) granted the Christians the freedom of Worship, even though you denied that in the first paragraph. And concerning the Romans, didn't the Orthodox used to say "Better the Sultan's turban than the pope's cap?

The phrase "a pox on both your houses" "the lesser of two evils" or better "the evil of two lessers" fits there.

Btw, it's 'Umar or Omar. Otherwise, people won't know who you are talking about.

Yes, 'Umar did practice divide and conquer, giving all competing Christian sects and Jewish sects rights to squabble. He didn't give that same freedom to Muslim sects, though.

Quote

Quote

Because as mufti and president Izzetbegovich, the first duty of a Muslim in a non-Muslim state is to work for the implimentation of shari'ah.

That's because of what?

Thirst for control.

Quote

Anyway, Muslims ought to implement Sharia in Islamic countries before trying to do so in other places.

The Islamists say "Islam is the solution." Our Lord says "Physician, heal thyself." A Muslim atheist I knew (yes, they exist) said "what is true Islam? What Muslims do not do, because when you point out what is going on in Muslim countries, Muslim governments, Muslim movements....they say "that's not true Islam."

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

We exist because the Lord had promised us "the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against My Church."

So you do exist! But that goes against your claim that Christians don't have the freedom to worship under Islamic rule.

Quote

The phrase "a pox on both your houses" "the lesser of two evils" or better "the evil of two lessers" fits there.

Btw, it's 'Umar or Omar. Otherwise, people won't know who you are talking about.

Yes, 'Umar did practice divide and conquer, giving all competing Christian sects and Jewish sects rights to squabble. He didn't give that same freedom to Muslim sects, though.

So the fragmentation of the Chruch into thousands of pieces is because of the Prophet's companion! I find that rather hard to believe.

Quote

The Islamists say "Islam is the solution." Our Lord says "Physician, heal thyself." A Muslim atheist I knew (yes, they exist) said "what is true Islam? What Muslims do not do, because when you point out what is going on in Muslim countries, Muslim governments, Muslim movements....they say "that's not true Islam."

You do realize that secularism is a herecy, don't you? You can't just claim a doctrine to be Christian just because it's in and it's popular. Take an example from the few of us; No matter how democracy will remain predominant in the world, we will always reject it as an anti-Islamic, anti-Traditional and throughoutly absurd governing system.

Anyway, Islam is the Quran, the Hadith and the consensus of the Nations' scholars, all of which were abondoned by Muslims. The glrorious Ottoman state, may the Almighty resurrect us beside its founders and sustainers, is an Islamic state as it was governed by the sources of juridiction that I've named above,, any modern 'Muslim' government is not. I don't think this is a very hard concept to grasp.

LOL. Wrong on all counts. The Church had spread to India, where it had no army, and spread to Ethiopia without an army (where it later got an army) and among the Rus', where it also had no army at that point. The Prince of All Rus, St. Vladimir, accepted baptism from the patriarch of Constantinople AFTER defeating the Emperor. The Chinese Orthodox Church started when the Chinese Emeperor defeated the Czar's soliders and brought them back to Peking. Orthodoxy came to America by a Virginian converted by translating out services, and the Church came from trade, and spread AFTER the Czar recalled his army and the US army set up a military regime which tried to stamp out the Orthodox Church there.

That's far, far from what I was talking about. The fact that Christianity was spread to certain places without forces wouldn't have stopped it from being reduced to the the religious of few communities scattered around the near East and Europe by the hand of Muslim.

You didn't read correctly: I cited examples that it did just that. I'll add, the Visigoth Kings adopted the Orthodox Catholic Faith of their subjects in Spain.

During the first fitnah, many civil wars, even your own Muslim armies switched and sought baptism, to the tens of thousands. It wasn't the last time that happened.

Quote

Likewise, the fact that the early Meccan and Medinian Muslims converted with no martial intervention whatsoever,

You skip over the elimination of the opposition in Medina and then the conquest of Mecca. Even if the entire career of your prophet were peaceful, the Church endured over 10 times that length of time under a capital sentence imposed by the world. The Church not only survived, but prospered and emerged victorious.

Quote

as it was the case with the Turkic people (who would be came later the source of our pride and the crown over our heads),

Turks were imported by the caliphs as slaves. Hardly a free choice. One such, Mahmud of Gaznah, imposed Islam on his ethnic cohorts, including the Seljuks (who may have been Jewish prior).

Quote

Indonesians,

A misfortunate side affect of the Dutch policy of having local Muslim chiefs act as protectorates for the colony as a whole, and giving them a free hand as long as the taxes were paid to the Dutch. Btw, when I was in Egypt in the 90's, they were all worried about a milliion Indonesian Muslims converting to Christianity.

Quote

a lot of Africans

Many who converted so that, according to shari'ah, they couldn't be enslaved. But even here, the sword (e.g. Murabitah) was the main means of "persuasion."

Quote

and many other peoples, this fact wouldn't be a good argument for us if we were to claim that Islam would've survived has it held a pacifist stance.

Give it a shot to make that argument.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

LOL. Wrong on all counts. The Church had spread to India, where it had no army, and spread to Ethiopia without an army (where it later got an army) and among the Rus', where it also had no army at that point. The Prince of All Rus, St. Vladimir, accepted baptism from the patriarch of Constantinople AFTER defeating the Emperor. The Chinese Orthodox Church started when the Chinese Emeperor defeated the Czar's soliders and brought them back to Peking. Orthodoxy came to America by a Virginian converted by translating out services, and the Church came from trade, and spread AFTER the Czar recalled his army and the US army set up a military regime which tried to stamp out the Orthodox Church there.

That's far, far from what I was talking about. The fact that Christianity was spread to certain places without forces wouldn't have stopped it from being reduced to the the religious of few communities scattered around the near East and Europe by the hand of Muslim.

You didn't read correctly: I cited examples that it did just that. I'll add, the Visigoth Kings adopted the Orthodox Catholic Faith of their subjects in Spain.

During the first fitnah, many civil wars, even your own Muslim armies switched and sought baptism, to the tens of thousands. It wasn't the last time that happened.

Quote

Likewise, the fact that the early Meccan and Medinian Muslims converted with no martial intervention whatsoever,

You skip over the elimination of the opposition in Medina and then the conquest of Mecca. Even if the entire career of your prophet were peaceful, the Church endured over 10 times that length of time under a capital sentence imposed by the world. The Church not only survived, but prospered and emerged victorious.

Quote

as it was the case with the Turkic people (who would be came later the source of our pride and the crown over our heads),

Turks were imported by the caliphs as slaves. Hardly a free choice. One such, Mahmud of Gaznah, imposed Islam on his ethnic cohorts, including the Seljuks (who may have been Jewish prior).

Quote

Indonesians,

A misfortunate side affect of the Dutch policy of having local Muslim chiefs act as protectorates for the colony as a whole, and giving them a free hand as long as the taxes were paid to the Dutch. Btw, when I was in Egypt in the 90's, they were all worried about a milliion Indonesian Muslims converting to Christianity.

Quote

a lot of Africans

Many who converted so that, according to shari'ah, they couldn't be enslaved. But even here, the sword (e.g. Murabitah) was the main means of "persuasion."

Well, let's just say that everyone who ahs ever embraced God's Religion did so through force, inluding Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman and Ali if that pleases you. That far, far, far from my point and for some reason you keep talkinga abount conversion from Islamic to Christianism even though absolutely nothing calls for it. My point is that Christians never hesitated to use iron when they could, and if they didn't Christianity would've been reduced to scattered pockets here and there like it is in the near eats (manly the Levant and Egypt).

Quote

Quote

and many other peoples, this fact wouldn't be a good argument for us if we were to claim that Islam would've survived has it held a pacifist stance.

Give it a shot to make that argument.

Oh believe me, I would've LOVED it if you gave it a shot, alas, you didn't. Among many other thing's we wouldn't have to live in the modern filth that was puked by the "Enlightenment" which toke place in the nominally Christian Europe.

Of course you do, at least you try to, that's why I said you can't have an objective objection on the above.

How can I have an objection to a so-called dogma that my faith never formulates or endorses? This is ridiculous and similar to saying that Muslims object to the concept of dogma because they deny the Nicene Creed.

Oh believe me, I would've LOVED it if you gave it a shot, alas, you didn't. Among many other thing's we wouldn't have to live in the modern filth that was puked by the "Enlightenment" which toke place in the nominally Christian Europe.

Days are coming when people will miss that "modern filth puked by the Enlightenment" because of Islam, puked by Satan into the ear of your pagan prophet.

You offer that status to the People of the Book, not to other non-Muslims. You should read the Qur'an more carefully.

The dhimmi status was also offered to other groups, I don't think you are more able to interpret the Quran and Sunna better than the scholars who saw that to be legal.

Quote

How can I have an objection to a so-called dogma that my faith never formulates or endorses? This is ridiculous and similar to saying that Muslims object to the concept of dogma because they deny the Nicene Creed.

I'm talking about the concept of dogma in general, not a specific dogma.

Quote

Why don't you enlighten me by giving a true example of dogma?

A dogma is simply an idea that a group of people ought to accept regardless of their own opinion concerning it. Like wearing a helmet for motorists.

Quote

Warfare is not an integral part of religion since politics and religion may stand apart.

Nothing can be separated from one's religion. If the Law tells you that you can't work in sundays but you helped making a law that, somehow, forces people to work that day, it means that you are convinced that the working in sunday is better than not, which means that you have instated yourself in a higher stature than the instater of the Law.

Likewise, if you believe that God says that the acceptable stance on warfare is pacifism, but you supported the formation or sustenance of an army in any how, this means that you have proclaimed yourself as a better law maker than God.

Quote

Invading a land because of religious differences is not the same as invading a land because of political interests.

How about invading land for intellectual differences? This covers all cases.

We exist because the Lord had promised us "the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against My Church."

So you do exist!

No thanks to Islam: my personal existence has been threatened by Muslims many a time.

Quote

But that goes against your claim that Christians don't have the freedom to worship under Islamic rule.

No, just goes to prove what the Lord said "In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world" (John 16:33)

Quote

Quote

The phrase "a pox on both your houses" "the lesser of two evils" or better "the evil of two lessers" fits there.

Btw, it's 'Umar or Omar. Otherwise, people won't know who you are talking about.

Yes, 'Umar did practice divide and conquer, giving all competing Christian sects and Jewish sects rights to squabble. He didn't give that same freedom to Muslim sects, though.

So the fragmentation of the Chruch into thousands of pieces is because of the Prophet's companion! I find that rather hard to believe.

The Church is One.

The fragments which flaked off didn't reach a thousand until the appearance of the Protestants, the ones who denies the Church's existence over a thousand years even after your appearance.

So no, that would be given Umar credit than what is due. He did help to fragment the Muslims though.

Quote

Quote

The Islamists say "Islam is the solution." Our Lord says "Physician, heal thyself." A Muslim atheist I knew (yes, they exist) said "what is true Islam? What Muslims do not do, because when you point out what is going on in Muslim countries, Muslim governments, Muslim movements....they say "that's not true Islam."

You do realize that secularism is a herecy, don't you?

Not in Islam, which for the most part is imbued with the love of the world.

Quote

You can't just claim a doctrine to be Christian just because it's in and it's popular. Take an example from the few of us; No matter how democracy will remain predominant in the world, we will always reject it as an anti-Islamic, anti-Traditional and throughoutly absurd governing system.

That's nice.

Quote

Anyway, Islam is the Quran, the Hadith and the consensus of the Nations' scholars, all of which were abondoned by Muslims. The glrorious Ottoman state, may the Almighty resurrect us beside its founders and sustainers, is an Islamic state as it was governed by the sources of juridiction that I've named above,, any modern 'Muslim' government is not. I don't think this is a very hard concept to grasp.

Your prophet's kingdom is very much of the world: if it has to wait to next for fulfillment, it's rather useless.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

LOL. Wrong on all counts. The Church had spread to India, where it had no army, and spread to Ethiopia without an army (where it later got an army) and among the Rus', where it also had no army at that point. The Prince of All Rus, St. Vladimir, accepted baptism from the patriarch of Constantinople AFTER defeating the Emperor. The Chinese Orthodox Church started when the Chinese Emeperor defeated the Czar's soliders and brought them back to Peking. Orthodoxy came to America by a Virginian converted by translating out services, and the Church came from trade, and spread AFTER the Czar recalled his army and the US army set up a military regime which tried to stamp out the Orthodox Church there.

That's far, far from what I was talking about. The fact that Christianity was spread to certain places without forces wouldn't have stopped it from being reduced to the the religious of few communities scattered around the near East and Europe by the hand of Muslim.

You didn't read correctly: I cited examples that it did just that. I'll add, the Visigoth Kings adopted the Orthodox Catholic Faith of their subjects in Spain.

During the first fitnah, many civil wars, even your own Muslim armies switched and sought baptism, to the tens of thousands. It wasn't the last time that happened.

Quote

Likewise, the fact that the early Meccan and Medinian Muslims converted with no martial intervention whatsoever,

You skip over the elimination of the opposition in Medina and then the conquest of Mecca. Even if the entire career of your prophet were peaceful, the Church endured over 10 times that length of time under a capital sentence imposed by the world. The Church not only survived, but prospered and emerged victorious.

Quote

as it was the case with the Turkic people (who would be came later the source of our pride and the crown over our heads),

Turks were imported by the caliphs as slaves. Hardly a free choice. One such, Mahmud of Gaznah, imposed Islam on his ethnic cohorts, including the Seljuks (who may have been Jewish prior).

Quote

Indonesians,

A misfortunate side affect of the Dutch policy of having local Muslim chiefs act as protectorates for the colony as a whole, and giving them a free hand as long as the taxes were paid to the Dutch. Btw, when I was in Egypt in the 90's, they were all worried about a milliion Indonesian Muslims converting to Christianity.

Quote

a lot of Africans

Many who converted so that, according to shari'ah, they couldn't be enslaved. But even here, the sword (e.g. Murabitah) was the main means of "persuasion."

Well, let's just say that everyone who ahs ever embraced God's Religion did so through force, inluding Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman and Ali if that pleases you. That far, far, far from my point and for some reason you keep talkinga abount conversion from Islamic to Christianism even though absolutely nothing calls for it.

Hadith number 8 definitely requires a thread on its own. Neither does giving three entirely different interpretations of the hadith in any way explain it nor can it in any way be related to Orthodoxy.

is there not a verse in the Quran (possibly by Muhammed, but I may be mistaken) where it is quoted saying something along the lines of "now that we have returned from a lesser Jihad [battle], it is time to focus on the greater Jihad [spiritual]"? No one denies that jihad is of a personal struggle between one who submits to God and God himself, but from what I understand, there is also a physical, destructive element to jihad also.

No matter how you'd interpret the hadith, you can't suggest that it requires individuals to be fought until they convert as the Quranic verses, the hadiths and historical evidence are clear that organized religious minorities are to be given the freedom of worship, as long as their any effective temporal power is taken away from them and they submit to the Islamic state (which what the Hadith probably means).

Quote

My point is that Christians never hesitated to use iron when they could,

You haven't made this baseless assertion before, but if you say that is your point.

Quote

and if they didn't Christianity would've been reduced to scattered pockets here and there like it is in the near eats (manly the Levant and Egypt).

Spread here without "iron"

Spread here without "iron"

Spread here without "iron"

Spread by iron:

Quote

Quote

and many other peoples, this fact wouldn't be a good argument for us if we were to claim that Islam would've survived has it held a pacifist stance.

Give it a shot to make that argument.

Oh believe me, I would've LOVED it if you gave it a shot, alas, you didn't. Among many other thing's we wouldn't have to live in the modern filth that was puked by the "Enlightenment" which toke place in the nominally Christian Europe.[/quote]No one can make the argument that Islam would have survived without the sword.

« Last Edit: July 11, 2010, 04:06:55 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The dhimmi status was also offered to other groups, I don't think you are more able to interpret the Quran and Sunna better than the scholars who saw that to be legal.

I am not interested in how some Muslim leaders interpret the Qur'an. The verse regulating dhimmi targets the People of the Book rather than all non-Muslims.

Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low. (Surah 9:29)

If Muslims offered that status to all non-Muslims, they believed that even idolaters and atheists belonged to the group of the People of the Book, which is quite ridiculous.

Nothing can be separated from one's religion. If the Law tells you that you can't work in sundays but you helped making a law that, somehow, forces people to work that day, it means that you are convinced that the working in sunday is better than not, which means that you have instated yourself in a higher stature than the instater of the Law.

Which Law are you talking about? The Law of state or the Law of God? According to Christ, whom I follow, these were separate. How can you say nothing can be separated from religion when Christ made that separation?

Likewise, if you believe that God says that the acceptable stance on warfare is pacifism, but you supported the formation or sustenance of an army in any how, this means that you have proclaimed yourself as a better law maker than God.

Give to Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar, and to God what belongs to God. The earthly kingdoms form armies to survive. You cannot say the same about God.

Not in Islam, which for the most part is imbued with the love of the world.

Indeed, gabstaining from fornication for life, going out to the mosque five times a day (one of which at dawn), sometimes the mosque being far away, fasting a month and jeopardizing one's life for the sake of the Almighty, all this among other things can only be cause by the love of the physical world.

You urgently need to read some Islamic literature, I would advise you to read Imam Ghazali's Ihya, especially the two books about the sicknesses of the heart and their treatment, you will find it in any library in Egypt or Syria.

May God forgive you.

Quote

Spread here without "iron"

You still don't get my point, even if we were to assume that every Christian in the world converted to Christianity through his own individual conviction without any pressure whatsoever, and that every one who has ever converted to Islam did it through physical force, that wouldn't change the fact that if Christians were truly pacifist they would have been swallowed by Islamic states, and gradually converted to God's Religion like it happened in the Levant and Egypt.

I think we've talked enough about the subject of Christianity and warfare, especially since the same discussion is open in two thread. I would like it very much if people read the suggested collection and bring up other subjects.

Not in Islam, which for the most part is imbued with the love of the world.

Indeed, gabstaining from fornication for life,

Define fornication: for us four wives and as many concubines as you can handle is fornication. The defining down of deviancy of fornication by the shari'ah skews your statement.

I keep on forgetting the correct term: if you divorce your wife three times, you have to have her marry someone else before you can marry her again. There's a term for the man who does the deed which I always forget.

Four wives, concubines, and with you Malikis and Shi'ites temporary marriage (the other Sunnis do it too, they just resort to legal tricks to do so). And yet Muslim men still manage to commit fornication and adultery.

Quote

going out to the mosque five times a day (one of which at dawn), sometimes the mosque being far away,

For Sunnis, it is only required to go to the mosque at noontime on Friday, and other festival prayers, etc. Otherwise, you can do them wherever you are. Not a fault, just a fact (for Shi'ites, its even less). And there are plenty of store front mosques all over the place in the Muslim world.

Quote

fasting a month and jeopardizing one's life for the sake of the Almighty,

So you don't eat all day, but instead gorge yourself all night. In Egypt Ramadan is like Carnival for a month. Even the Copts look forward to it, except when it falls during the Four Fasts of the Church, when they are the ones fasting.

Quote

all this among other things can only be cause by the love of the physical world.

Houris.

Quote

You urgently need to read some Islamic literature, I would advise you to read Imam Ghazali's Ihya, especially the two books about the sicknesses of the heart and their treatment, you will find it in any library in Egypt or Syria.

LOL. You assUme that I haven't read them.

It is famous enough, you can find it practically anywhere, and in translation.

Quote

May God forgive you.

And you.

Quote

Quote

Spread here without "iron"

You still don't get my point, even if we were to assume that every Christian in the world converted to Christianity through his own individual conviction without any pressure whatsoever, and that every one who has ever converted to Islam did it through physical force, that wouldn't change the fact that if Christians were truly pacifist they would have been swallowed by Islamic states, and gradually converted to God's Religion like it happened in the Levant and Egypt.

You are asserting that a) the Christians were not truly pacifist b) were swallowed up by Islamic states. That's besides ignoring that they had God's religion before Islam showed up, and kept to it.

In the Levant, Lebanon remained a majority Christian region until less than a century ago, and Upper Egypt is still majority Christian. In both places emigration and slaughter by Muslims, rather than conversion, has been the main cause of demographic change.

The whole Near East remained majority Christian nearly everywhere until the Latin Crusades. The Christian population took a severe and hard hit during and after the Crusaders.

« Last Edit: July 11, 2010, 07:43:27 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I keep on forgetting the correct term: if you divorce your wife three times, you have to have her marry someone else before you can marry her again. There's a term for the man who does the deed which I always forget.

MUHALLIL! I keep on forgetting that term (btw, the reference to Muwatta' is particularly apropos, as our Muslim friend is Maliki and it is their foundational text):

Quote

MUHALLIL If a Muslim man has divorced his wife, but then has a change of mind, he cannot simply remarry her even if both want to start over again. Islamic law stipulates that the wife must first marry and have intercourse with another man, and who has to divorce her again, before it becomes lawful for the original couple to remarry.

The man who marries a divorced wife in order to make her lawful for her former husband again is called muhallil, which literally means, "One who makes lawful."

The basis for this law is found in the Qur'an:

Divorce is twice; then honourable retention or setting free kindly. It is not lawful for you to take of what you have given them unless the couple fear they may not maintain God's bounds; if you fear they may not maintain God's bounds, it is no fault in them for her to redeem herself. Those are God's bounds; do not transgress them. Whosoever transgresses the bounds of God -- those are the evildoers. If he divorces her finally, she shall not be lawful to him after that, until she marries another husband. If he divorces her, then it is no fault in them to return to each other, if they suppose that they will maintain God's bounds. Those are God's bounds; He makes them clear unto a people that have knowledge. S. 2:229-230

Muslim tradition specifies that this cannot be a pro forma marriage (i.e. they cannot only marry on paper, not only register the marriage), but the woman must engage in sexual intercourse with the man before she can return to her former husband:

Yahya related to me from Malik from al-Miswar ibn Rifaa al-Quradhi from az-Zubayr ibn Abd ar-Rahman ibn az-Zubayr that Rifaa ibn Simwal divorced his wife, Tamima bint Wahb, in the time of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, three times. Then she married Abd ar-Rahman ibn az-Zubayr and he turned from her and could not consummate the marriage and so he parted from her. Rifaa wanted to marry her again and it was mentioned to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and he forbade him to marry her. He said, "She is not halal for you until she has tasted the sweetness of intercourse." (Malik's Muwatta, Book 28, Number 28.7.17)

Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said from al-Qasim ibn Muhammad that A'isha, the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said when asked whether it was permissible for a man to marry again a wife he had divorced irrevocably if she had married another man who divorced her before consummating the marriage, "Not until she has tasted the sweetness of intercourse." (Malik's Muwatta, Book 28, Number 28.7.18)

The man who makes the woman lawful for her former husband is called Muhallil:

Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that when asked whether it was permissible for a man to return to his wife if he had divorced her irrevocably and then another man had married her after him and died before consummating the marriage, al-Qasim ibn Muhammad said, "It is not halal for the first husband to return to her." Malik said, about the muhallil, that he could not remain in the marriage until he undertook a new marriage. If he had intercourse with her in that marriage, she had her dowry. (Malik's Muwatta, Book 28, Number 28.7.19)

This Islamic law stands in stark contradiction to the Biblical command:

"If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance." Deuteronomy 24:1-4

"God says, 'If a husband divorces his wife and she goes from him and belongs to another man, will he still return to her? Will not that land be completely polluted? But you are a harlot with many lovers; Yet you turn to Me,' declares the LORD. Lift up your eyes to the bare heights and see; Where have you not been violated? By the roads you have sat for them Like an Arab in the desert, And you have polluted a land with your harlotry and with your wickedness." Jeremiah 3:1-2

What God calls detestable, the Qur'an commands Muslims to perform. It is one of many reasons the Qur'an does not originate from the same source as the Bible. It is not from the God of the Bible. See also: Does Allah Command Evil?, A strange divorce and remarriage law in the Quran

Even from the time of Muhammad, we have reports about some of the bad consequences resulting from this Islamic regulation:

Narrated 'Ikrima:Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" When 'AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, "By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this," holding and showing the fringe of her garment, 'Abdur-Rahman said, "By Allah, O Allah's Apostle! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa'a." Allah's Apostle said, to her, "If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa'a unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you." Then the Prophet saw two boys with 'Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), "Are these your sons?" On that 'AbdurRahman said, "Yes." The Prophet said, "You claim what you claim (i.e. that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow." (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 72, Number 715)

Whatever the reasons for their marital disagreements, the man was beating his wife (which the Qur'an allows, and which seems to be of no concern to Muhammad), but based on this law, Muhammad demands from her to have intercourse with this man, even though this may not be possible. Men can become impotent for many reasons. Perhaps 'AbdurRahman was able to perform intercourse in earlier years, but he had become impotent later. Having two sons does not prove anything about a man's present ability for intercourse. Muhammad was apparently unaware of this basic medical fact. Whether she was lying, or he was lying, it is obvious that this was not a happy marriage. Muhammad demanded that two people who had no love for each other, have intercourse before the woman could remarry her former husband, assuming that he wanted her back.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

It is famous enough, you can find it practically anywhere, and in translation.

So you actually read the Ihya! Wow! Truly wow! I'm impressed. A Christian reading the Ihya is like a Muslim reading De Imitatione Christi! Congratulaions! I haven't finished it yet, it's a monster of a book.

But I didn't it rather hard for someone who read it to claim that Muslims have any interest in the physical world or in satisfying their carnal desires!

In the Levant, Lebanon remained a majority Christian region until less than a century ago, and Upper Egypt is still majority Christian. In both places emigration and slaughter by Muslims, rather than conversion, has been the main cause of demographic change.

Evidence shows that the Egyptian population is homogeneous and the Islamic conquest didn't bring any noticeable contribution to the Egyptian genetic pool. I'm Moroccan, and like you, I know that you can spot an Egyptian from a crow of thousand as I can spot a Moroccan or Algerian brethren of mine. they have very distinctive facial features which are the same among both Christians and Muslims.

Considering that and considering that the Egyptian population is verging on a disastrous number of 80 million human, you claim leave us with three choices.

1) Muslims indeed slaughter the Christians but left a few couples and forced them to procreate like rabbits and provided them with some futuristic medical technology to ensure a high rate of child survival, and then they Islamized those children and from them the nearly 70 million Muslim Egyptian were born.

2) You're misinformed.

3) You're just making stuff up.

Since the first choice is physically impossible and since you're a Christian which means the third is also impossible, we are left with the second choice.

It is famous enough, you can find it practically anywhere, and in translation.

So you actually read the Ihya! Wow! Truly wow! I'm impressed. A Christian reading the Ihya is like a Muslim reading De Imitatione Christi! Congratulaions! I haven't finished it yet, it's a monster of a book.

My doctorate exams were in Early Islamic History and Islamic Thought.

Quote

But I didn't it rather hard for someone who read it to claim that Muslims have any interest in the physical world or in satisfying their carnal desires!

LOL. There is a reason why he calls it "Ihya" (for those misfortunate wretches who don't understand Arabic, it means "revival/reviviication/bring to life"). Most Muslim books do not read that way. Another that does is Rumi (in Persian, however).

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

That explains it! I must confess, I doubted you claim there for a moment, I think you can udnerstad why. I apologize for that.

Quote

LOL. There is a reason why he calls it "Ihya" (for those misfortunate wretches who don't understand Arabic, it means "revival/reviviication/bring to life"). Most Muslim books do not read that way. Another that does is Rumi (in Persian, however).

I'm not quite sure what you're saying there, but if you're saying that zuhd is a rarity in Islamic thought and history then I must disagree with you, and quite strongly. The overwhelming majority of Islamic scholars were known for their extreme piety and zuhd in the material life, and this is true for both scholars of the esoteric (sufis) as well as those of exoteric (e.g. Imam Malik, Imam Shafi'i, Sufyan al-Thawri etc).

In the Levant, Lebanon remained a majority Christian region until less than a century ago, and Upper Egypt is still majority Christian. In both places emigration and slaughter by Muslims, rather than conversion, has been the main cause of demographic change.

Evidence shows that the Egyptian population is homogeneous

Genetic testing shows that the Egyptian population is quite mixed, maternal markers showing contributions from the horn of Africa (especially close to the Tigre) and paternal ones showing links to Saharan populations. The high level of cousin marriages etc. (among both Copts and Muslims) does have the effect of homogenizing the population (as inevitable some do not marry their cousins).

Quote

The geographic location of Egypt, at the interface between North Africa, the Middle East, and southern Europe, prompted us to investigate the genetic diversity of this population and its relationship with neighboring populations. To assess the extent to which the modern Egyptian population reflects this intermediate geographic position, ten Unique Event Polymorphisms (UEPs), mapping to the nonrecombining portion of the Y chromosome, have been typed in 164 Y chromosomes from three North African populations. The analysis of these binary markers, which define 11 Y-chromosome lineages, were used to determine the haplogroup frequencies in Egyptians, Moroccan Arabs, and Moroccan Berbers and thereby define the Y-chromosome background in these regions. Pairwise comparisons with a set of 15 different populations from neighboring European, North African, and Middle Eastern populations and geographic analysis showed the absence of any significant genetic barrier in the eastern part of the Mediterranean area, suggesting that genetic variation and gene flow in this area follow the "isolation-by-distance" model. These results are in sharp contrast with the observation of a strong north-south genetic barrier in the western Mediterranean basin, defined by the Gibraltar Strait. Thus, the Y-chromosome gene pool in the modern Egyptian population reflects a mixture of European, Middle Eastern, and African characteristics, highlighting the importance of ancient and recent migration waves, followed by gene flow, in the region.

Myself, I've seen a blond Copt fellahin who could have passed for a Swede (I know: I"ve part Swede and I've been to Sweden), down in the deep rural parts of Upper Egypt (near Deir-alMuharrak, where St. Joseph got the dream to return to Palestine). In Aswan I met a Nubian with deep black skin and blue eyes (back in the days before color contact lens. He was quite insistent about how he was Nubian, not Egyptian). And I've seen every gradiation in between amongst the Egyptians. (I've seen quite a range in the Turkish Republic too, btw).

It would take a lot to change the gene pool of 80 million, but we haven't always been that many. At the time of our last invasion (the British, 1882) the population of Egypt was 7 million, having hovered around 4-5 million for millenia. The problem is that we have been getting immigrants from so many sources for so long from the same places, that genetic studies may only indicate the continued influx (which continues: the wives of the present (and so the mother of the future) and past presidents have British roots. This has been going on since the the 3rd millennia BC, when a writer complains that foreignors come into the Valley and "become people" i.e. Egyptians. The word for Syrian/Hittite became the word for "slave" (their source), and "Mede" became the word for soldier (after the Persian invasion: we had Libyans/Berbers, and Nubians too). When Alexander came, he promoted his policy of importing Greeks (already under way for centuries in Egypt) and intermarrying. The conversion to Christianity only accelerated that, with the Egyptians adopting the Greek alphabet over their hieroglyphics to write their Egypitian language, now called Coptic, which didn't fully die out until the 17th century.

Quote

and the Islamic conquest didn't bring any noticeable contribution to the Egyptian genetic pool.

The invasion which we are interested in, of course, is the Arab one under 'Umar. Literary, linquistic and archeological evidence shows that the Muslim Arabs kept to themselves in the Amsar (millitary settlements) in Fustat and outside Alexandria, whereas the bulk of the rest of the country remained Coptic. Many of the Chalcedonian population (mostly Greeks and others, but including Copts) left for the Roman Empire. Things didn't change much until the Fatimids came with their Berber troops, and then imported Turks, Kurds and Arab Bedouin (the later which they sent to your neck of the woods) troops. Being the conquerors, they had the lion share of resources (food, women, etc.). They also brought in a lot of slaves, who were Islamicized in the process. The destruction of the Coptic majority didn't happen until al-Hakim (who had a Greek mother) instituted consistent and prolonged persecusion, a rarity in Fatimid Egypt. Something which can't be said of the Mamluks, who raped the country in more ways than one and left us in the state Napolean and the Modern World found us in his invasion.

So in Lower Egypt we had the constant influx of new, Muslim rulers, to which the Copts of Lower Egypt responded mostly by fleeing south to Upper Egypt.

Btw, another issue of demography is the large monastic population of the Copts (St. Anthony after all organized monasticism in Egypt) versus the troops the succession of Muslim lords brought in, who tended to keep the whore houses going (there are a number of interesting records from the Mamluk period on the protistution trade and the army), along with all the slaves (the biographies of Muslim personalities in a huge proportion have a slave mother) and were fruitful and multiplied in the main centers of power, while the Copts retreated to the desert and the countryside.

The last major Muslim invasion was Muhammad Ali, who brought in lots of Albanians, more Turks, Armenians (not the first time: they came during Fatimid times. They do not, however, intermarry much so do not contribute to Egypt's common gene pool) and Greeks.

My son's godmother is a Copt who is part Arab (from Lebanon) and Greek (from Greece), besides Copt.

Quote

I'm Moroccan, and like you, I know that you can spot an Egyptian from a crow of thousand as I can spot a Moroccan or Algerian brethren of mine. they have very distinctive facial features which are the same among both Christians and Muslims.

Considering that and considering that the Egyptian population is verging on a disastrous number of 80 million human, you claim leave us with three choices.

As Egypt only had about 4-5 million two hundred years ago, and this has increased 1700%+ over that time this

Quote

1) Muslims indeed slaughter the Christians but left a few couples and forced them to procreate like rabbits and provided them with some futuristic medical technology to ensure a high rate of child survival, and then they Islamized those children and from them the nearly 70 million Muslim Egyptian were born.

is just plain ridiculous and uncalled for. A small population has mushroomed, not matter how you look at the data. As I said, Upper Egypt has remained the haven of the Copts, until the rise of the recent Islamists there. Whereas the Muslims had a constant influx of numbers, and Copts numbers were kept down by themselves (monasticism) and their rulers (persecusion), both amply documented.

Quote

2) You're misinformed.

Hardly

Quote

3) You're just making stuff up.

I see no reason to start. I'll stick with the facts.

Quote

Since the first choice is physically impossible

The demographic history says otherwise.

Quote

and since you're a Christian

I'm not Copt. My people came in from Syria with Muhamma Ali.

Quote

which means the third is also impossible, we are left with the second choice.

Come up with some documentation that supports your contention.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

In the Levant, Lebanon remained a majority Christian region until less than a century ago, and Upper Egypt is still majority Christian. In both places emigration and slaughter by Muslims, rather than conversion, has been the main cause of demographic change.

Evidence shows that the Egyptian population is homogeneous

Genetic testing shows that the Egyptian population is quite mixed, maternal markers showing contributions from the horn of Africa (especially close to the Tigre) and paternal ones showing links to Saharan populations. The high level of cousin marriages etc. (among both Copts and Muslims) does have the effect of homogenizing the population (as inevitable some do not marry their cousins).

Quote

The geographic location of Egypt, at the interface between North Africa, the Middle East, and southern Europe, prompted us to investigate the genetic diversity of this population and its relationship with neighboring populations. To assess the extent to which the modern Egyptian population reflects this intermediate geographic position, ten Unique Event Polymorphisms (UEPs), mapping to the nonrecombining portion of the Y chromosome, have been typed in 164 Y chromosomes from three North African populations. The analysis of these binary markers, which define 11 Y-chromosome lineages, were used to determine the haplogroup frequencies in Egyptians, Moroccan Arabs, and Moroccan Berbers and thereby define the Y-chromosome background in these regions. Pairwise comparisons with a set of 15 different populations from neighboring European, North African, and Middle Eastern populations and geographic analysis showed the absence of any significant genetic barrier in the eastern part of the Mediterranean area, suggesting that genetic variation and gene flow in this area follow the "isolation-by-distance" model. These results are in sharp contrast with the observation of a strong north-south genetic barrier in the western Mediterranean basin, defined by the Gibraltar Strait. Thus, the Y-chromosome gene pool in the modern Egyptian population reflects a mixture of European, Middle Eastern, and African characteristics, highlighting the importance of ancient and recent migration waves, followed by gene flow, in the region.

Myself, I've seen a blond Copt fellahin who could have passed for a Swede (I know: I"ve part Swede and I've been to Sweden), down in the deep rural parts of Upper Egypt (near Deir-alMuharrak, where St. Joseph got the dream to return to Palestine). In Aswan I met a Nubian with deep black skin and blue eyes (back in the days before color contact lens. He was quite insistent about how he was Nubian, not Egyptian). And I've seen every gradiation in between amongst the Egyptians. (I've seen quite a range in the Turkish Republic too, btw).

It would take a lot to change the gene pool of 80 million, but we haven't always been that many. At the time of our last invasion (the British, 1882) the population of Egypt was 7 million, having hovered around 4-5 million for millenia. The problem is that we have been getting immigrants from so many sources for so long from the same places, that genetic studies may only indicate the continued influx (which continues: the wives of the present (and so the mother of the future) and past presidents have British roots. This has been going on since the the 3rd millennia BC, when a writer complains that foreignors come into the Valley and "become people" i.e. Egyptians. The word for Syrian/Hittite became the word for "slave" (their source), and "Mede" became the word for soldier (after the Persian invasion: we had Libyans/Berbers, and Nubians too). When Alexander came, he promoted his policy of importing Greeks (already under way for centuries in Egypt) and intermarrying. The conversion to Christianity only accelerated that, with the Egyptians adopting the Greek alphabet over their hieroglyphics to write their Egypitian language, now called Coptic, which didn't fully die out until the 17th century.

Quote

and the Islamic conquest didn't bring any noticeable contribution to the Egyptian genetic pool.

The invasion which we are interested in, of course, is the Arab one under 'Umar. Literary, linquistic and archeological evidence shows that the Muslim Arabs kept to themselves in the Amsar (millitary settlements) in Fustat and outside Alexandria, whereas the bulk of the rest of the country remained Coptic. Many of the Chalcedonian population (mostly Greeks and others, but including Copts) left for the Roman Empire. Things didn't change much until the Fatimids came with their Berber troops, and then imported Turks, Kurds and Arab Bedouin (the later which they sent to your neck of the woods) troops. Being the conquerors, they had the lion share of resources (food, women, etc.). They also brought in a lot of slaves, who were Islamicized in the process. The destruction of the Coptic majority didn't happen until al-Hakim (who had a Greek mother) instituted consistent and prolonged persecusion, a rarity in Fatimid Egypt. Something which can't be said of the Mamluks, who raped the country in more ways than one and left us in the state Napolean and the Modern World found us in his invasion.

So in Lower Egypt we had the constant influx of new, Muslim rulers, to which the Copts of Lower Egypt responded mostly by fleeing south to Upper Egypt.

Btw, another issue of demography is the large monastic population of the Copts (St. Anthony after all organized monasticism in Egypt) versus the troops the succession of Muslim lords brought in, who tended to keep the whore houses going (there are a number of interesting records from the Mamluk period on the protistution trade and the army), along with all the slaves (the biographies of Muslim personalities in a huge proportion have a slave mother) and were fruitful and multiplied in the main centers of power, while the Copts retreated to the desert and the countryside.

The last major Muslim invasion was Muhammad Ali, who brought in lots of Albanians, more Turks, Armenians (not the first time: they came during Fatimid times. They do not, however, intermarry much so do not contribute to Egypt's common gene pool) and Greeks.

My son's godmother is a Copt who is part Arab (from Lebanon) and Greek (from Greece), besides Copt.

See pages 7 and 8, there's hardly any trace of Arabian blood in all Arabic-speaking countries outside of Arabia.

That would be rather hard to prove, as the genes that went into Arabia (it's not a source of population, but a receiver for most of its history) came from the population of those now Arabic-speaking countries outside of Arabia.

« Last Edit: July 12, 2010, 02:14:44 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Egypt and the Levant were predominantly Christian. Most of the population has embraced God's Religion, alhamdulillah.

The rest of which were killed, enslaved or persecuted, either socially or through legal means and forced to "embrace" Muhammad's religion or flee the region to survive. Right? Or would you like to give your own explanation of what happened to those who are not apart of the "most" category you name.

oh and please provide your "evidence" of Egypt's homogeneous population. I find it difficult to believe for multiple purposes.

« Last Edit: July 12, 2010, 03:22:46 PM by Sloga »

Logged

Христе Боже, Распети и Свети!

"In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope." Saint Justin Popovic

Egypt and the Levant were predominantly Christian. Most of the population has embraced God's Religion, alhamdulillah.

The rest of which were killed, enslaved or persecuted, either socially or through legal means and forced to "embrace" Muhammad's religion or flee the region to survive. Right? Or would you like to give your own explanation of what happened to those who are not apart of the "most" category you name.

Most of the Christian population followed Christ and embraced Islam, the remained Christian.

Quote

oh and please provide your "evidence" of Egypt's homogeneous population. I find it difficult to believe for multiple purposes.

I'll accept it if you made a thread in an ethnology forum about the subject and the people there said that Muslim and Christian populatios in Egypt are different, and that the shift didn't happen through conversion.

I'll accept it if you made a thread in an ethnology forum about the subject and the people there said that Muslim and Christian populatios in Egypt are different, and that the shift didn't happen through conversion.

no no. You are the one that claims something, and I do no accept it. Therefor, you shall provide me with evidence you claim to possess that will force me to accept your statement. Do not claim to have evidence and then upon request tell me to go to another forum for the task of discrediting evidence you clearly do not possess. You made the claim, now back it up yourself. Otherwise, do not make such ignorant claims.

Let me give you a basic rundown of why your claim is incorrect.

Copts are generally considered to be the descendants of ancient Egyptians, or the pre-Arab invasion Egyptians. Individuals who converted to Islam and succombed to Arabification were also for the most part Coptic originally, but genetically became more diverse since intermarriage with Arab Muslims became common, as opposed to the Copts who primarily continued to marry amongst themselves. Y-Chromosome studies show that Egyptian genes show strong similarities with fellow North African peoples, and also with Middle Eastern peoples. However, the Copts not only exist as a seperate ethnic group today because of religion, but when studying the ethnic groups of Egypt, the Copts/Christians are often presented as a seperate genetic group on their own. This is of course for the known reason that their genetic make up is at the very least slightly different from the Muslim Egyptians. Yes you see the term "Homogeneous Egypt" but it is followed by "90% of Egypt is Arab". The ten percent ommitted from this homogeneous status is indeed the Copts.

Most of the Christian population followed Christ and embraced Islam, the remained Christian.

I'm assuming that you mean the true Christ followers embraced Islam. It would be interesting to understand the psyche of an individual who at first embraces the Son of God who is all about love, compassian, peace and freedom of choice, then decides to abandon the belief that Christ was divine yet still view him as a prophet, while at the same time following a prophet who was totally opposite from Christ by partaking in murder, slavery, violence and believing in such an authoritarian faith.

On a side note, a Copt once pointed out how Allah has about 99 or such names/descriptions, yet love isn't one. I found the entire list and noticed one of the names was "the all loving" and upon showing him this, with the Arabic version beside it, he showed me the rather foggy translation actually meant "The one who is loved by all". Surely your God loves, does he not?

« Last Edit: July 15, 2010, 02:14:13 AM by Sloga »

Logged

Христе Боже, Распети и Свети!

"In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope." Saint Justin Popovic

no no. You are the one that claims something, and I do no accept it. Therefor, you shall provide me with evidence you claim to possess that will force me to accept your statement. Do not claim to have evidence and then upon request tell me to go to another forum for the task of discrediting evidence you clearly do not possess. You made the claim, now back it up yourself. Otherwise, do not make such ignorant claims.

Let me give you a basic rundown of why your claim is incorrect.

Copts are generally considered to be the descendants of ancient Egyptians, or the pre-Arab invasion Egyptians. Individuals who converted to Islam and succombed to Arabification were also for the most part Coptic originally, but genetically became more diverse since intermarriage with Arab Muslims became common, as opposed to the Copts who primarily continued to marry amongst themselves. Y-Chromosome studies show that Egyptian genes show strong similarities with fellow North African peoples, and also with Middle Eastern peoples. However, the Copts not only exist as a seperate ethnic group today because of religion, but when studying the ethnic groups of Egypt, the Copts/Christians are often presented as a seperate genetic group on their own. This is of course for the known reason that their genetic make up is at the very least slightly different from the Muslim Egyptians. Yes you see the term "Homogeneous Egypt" but it is followed by "90% of Egypt is Arab". The ten percent ommitted from this homogeneous status is indeed the Copts.

It's common knowledge that Egypt was Islamized mainly due to conversion rather than immigration, so the burden of proof in on you. But the fact is, Genetic studies show that no genetic shift occurred in Egypt.Not to mention who absurd it is to claim that Egypt, a country which has more population than Arabia put together, was islamized though Arab migration, for this to be true, Arabia must have been evacuated and every Arab went to Egypt.

I'm assuming that you mean the true Christ followers embraced Islam. It would be interesting to understand the psyche of an individual who at first embraces the Son of God who is all about love, compassian, peace and freedom of choice, then decides to abandon the belief that Christ was divine yet still view him as a prophet, while at the same time following a prophet who was totally opposite from Christ by partaking in murder, slavery, violence and believing in such an authoritarian faith.

Well, maybe, just maybe, early Egyptians were not liberal, they realized that God is not all about peace and freedom, that he's all about Justice (as justice requires both peace and war) and Law (which requires man's freedom to be limited by obligations). A view which they easily acquire by swiftly reading such book as Deuteronomy (i.e God does not favor pacifism and liberalism).

Quote

On a side note, a Copt once pointed out how Allah has about 99 or such names/descriptions, yet love isn't one. I found the entire list and noticed one of the names was "the all loving" and upon showing him this, with the Arabic version beside it, he showed me the rather foggy translation actually meant "The one who is loved by all". Surely your God loves, does he not?

All of God's attributes denote his love for us: He loves us because he is the Creator who created us and created the Earth and everything we need, he also loves us as he is the Sustainer and the Provider et cetera. Not to mention that Al-wadood really means the loving One, as it derivied from the root WD ود and the word wid which means love, and hence wadood means the Loving One, as the wazn fa'oul refers to doing something consistently, so God is consistently loving.

I'm assuming that you mean the true Christ followers embraced Islam. It would be interesting to understand the psyche of an individual who at first embraces the Son of God who is all about love, compassian, peace and freedom of choice, then decides to abandon the belief that Christ was divine yet still view him as a prophet, while at the same time following a prophet who was totally opposite from Christ by partaking in murder, slavery, violence and believing in such an authoritarian faith.

Well, maybe, just maybe, early Egyptians were not liberal, they realized that God is not all about peace and freedom, that he's all about Justice (as justice requires both peace and war) and Law (which requires man's freedom to be limited by obligations). A view which they easily acquire by swiftly reading such book as Deuteronomy (i.e God does not favor pacifism and liberalism).

In other words, Egyptians had the cultural psychology of the Old Testament revenge type "justice", but us European "gentiles" had a cultural psychology of the New Testament love and compassion?Is that dichotomy really true? It is hard for me to think that Serbs or ancient Romans as a nation are more or less compassionate than Egyptians. However, I don't rule out that the Old Testament style of revenge was better suited to some time periods, like ancient Israel, which as you said about Deuteronomy, liked passages giving it other peoples' land. Meanwhile it seems that Christianity becomes more favored where people have the material means and prosperity that they can love and forgive eachother.

It's possible that harsh realities of Israeli and Egyptian deserts weren't conducive to this caring mindset, but I don't know. After all, the Caucuses, Lebanon, and Ethiopia are Christian, while Egypt does have a big Christian minority. Please say what you think.

Also, I am not sure that Islam is really so obsessed with bloodshed, revenge, and hate as extremists in Sanhedrin Judaism or in Calvinism portray it.

Quote

Quote

On a side note, a Copt once pointed out how Allah has about 99 or such names/descriptions, yet love isn't one. I found the entire list and noticed one of the names was "the all loving" and upon showing him this, with the Arabic version beside it, he showed me the rather foggy translation actually meant "The one who is loved by all". Surely your God loves, does he not?

All of God's attributes denote his love for us: He loves us because he is the Creator who created us and created the Earth and everything we need, he also loves us as he is the Sustainer and the Provider et cetera. Not to mention that Al-wadood really means the loving One, as it derivied from the root WD ود and the word wid which means love, and hence wadood means the Loving One, as the wazn fa'oul refers to doing something consistently, so God is consistently loving.And God knows best.

That is pretty.

Logged

The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

no no. You are the one that claims something, and I do no accept it. Therefor, you shall provide me with evidence you claim to possess that will force me to accept your statement. Do not claim to have evidence and then upon request tell me to go to another forum for the task of discrediting evidence you clearly do not possess. You made the claim, now back it up yourself. Otherwise, do not make such ignorant claims.

Let me give you a basic rundown of why your claim is incorrect.

Copts are generally considered to be the descendants of ancient Egyptians, or the pre-Arab invasion Egyptians. Individuals who converted to Islam and succombed to Arabification were also for the most part Coptic originally, but genetically became more diverse since intermarriage with Arab Muslims became common, as opposed to the Copts who primarily continued to marry amongst themselves. Y-Chromosome studies show that Egyptian genes show strong similarities with fellow North African peoples, and also with Middle Eastern peoples. However, the Copts not only exist as a seperate ethnic group today because of religion, but when studying the ethnic groups of Egypt, the Copts/Christians are often presented as a seperate genetic group on their own. This is of course for the known reason that their genetic make up is at the very least slightly different from the Muslim Egyptians. Yes you see the term "Homogeneous Egypt" but it is followed by "90% of Egypt is Arab". The ten percent ommitted from this homogeneous status is indeed the Copts.

It's common knowledge that Egypt was Islamized mainly due to conversion

No, it's a common assertion. How common in Egypt is an interesting question: most Arab Muslims pride themselves on Arab ancestry, which basically leaves conversion out of the question. I've actually heard it asserted more by Copts, but even they admit a lot of the Muslims are Arab imports.

Quote

rather than immigration, so the burden of proof in on you. But the fact is, Genetic studies show that no genetic shift occurred in Egypt.

You have yet to produce such "studies." The problem is like trying to using testing to find out which indentical twin is the father of a child: most of the genes coming into Egypt after Islam came, were coming before. There is, however, some difference between Y-chromosome studies and metrochondria, which would suggest differences in paternal and maternal lines (which often happens in subjected populations, for obvious reasons).

Quote

Not to mention who absurd it is to claim that Egypt, a country which has more population than Arabia put together, was islamized though Arab migration, for this to be true, Arabia must have been evacuated and every Arab went to Egypt.

Your not much on population studies, are you? Brazil now has far more Lebanese than Lebanon does (6-7 million versus 4 million). When the US became independent, it had under 4 million: 3,929,326, including 697,681 slaves (Amerindians, the US equivalent of the Copts, were not counted, but seem to have been just below 100,000). So 3, 231,645 (versus 10 million or slightly less in Great Britiain: it had around 5 million when they began to set up the English colonies). That from less than a milliion immigrants: the British sent 425,500, ended up with 2,560,000. The Dutch, whose colony of 6,000 had been conquered in 1674, stayed and ended up with 100,000 in 1790 (including Martin Van Buren, the only US president not to have English as his native language: he spoke with a life long Dutch accent). Immigration was a trickle until 1850, when the US had over 23 million, i.e. in just over two generations, it had increased fourfould. 1850-1930 the bulk of immigrants came (35 million), and the US ended up with 122,775,000. That number depended on less than the 35 million immigrants, as a little publicized fact is that a third of all immigrants did go back to their home countries. So with about 12 million immigrants increased 3000% from 4 million in 1790 to 122 million in 1930. Other countries like Canada/Quebec etc. show similar demographic history. I use the New World examples as they are the best documented cases as to the demographic impact of imported populations.

I've seen estimates as high as 4-5 million for the population as a whole, and as high as a quarter million for the Copts at the time. Let's use the high 5 million for the total population, and even go lower than Lane for the Copts to 100,000 (the absolute mimimum for the time). As you keep going on about, the population has increased in the just under two centuries at least 1,500%, not even considering the considerable emmigration from Egypt. Using the government's figures, which even it admits are low, the Copts have increased 5,000-7,500% over the same time, and have gone from at least 2% to the present government claim of 6-7% (I"ve seen Egyptian government publications which admit as high as 20%). This, as the law court records show, Copts do convert to Islam. Btw, at independence the population was 13 million, with 700,000 Copts according to the census. At the time of the British invasion (our last) in 1882 the census said the country had 6,806,400, with 6,051,625 (88.91%) Muslims, and 405, 903 Copts (5.96%). The rest were Greeks, Armenians, Jews, and foreignors. The Arab Bedouin in the Deserts, interestingly, began to be counted in the country's census: they were 250,000. Despite nearly a century and a half of being kept at arms length, marginalized while also forcibly settled, they number just under a million now (not counting their settled descendants). The ones who came in brining Islam, who had the whole of the Nile Valley for their use, could, and did, even better.http://books.google.com/books?pg=PR24&dq=Egypt%20census%20700%2C000%20christian&ei=FT4_TMT8CMLbnAfn083mBA&ct=result&id=mGjOAAAAMAAJ&output=text

Btw, the population of the Arabian Peninsula is 77,983,936, so you are pretty much wrong in your conclusions there too. True, much of that is foreign (at least 20%), but then again, the argument here is that most of the Egyptian population comes from immigration.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

1. "Actions are (judged) by motives (niyyah), so each man will have what he intended. Thus, he whose migration (hijrah) was to Allah and His Messenger, his migration is to Allah and His Messenger; but he whose migration was for some worldly thing he might gain, or for a wife he might marry, his migration is to that for which he migrated."

What has this added to the Sermon on the Mount? Mat. 5:

Quote

13 "You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trodden under foot by men. 14 "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. 15 Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. 17 "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. 18 For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.21 "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' 22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire. 23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25 Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; 26 truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny. 27 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' 28 But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell...43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

The problem is that the jurists of Islam have reduced niyyah "intention" to a formality recited before prayer or some other act of piety. The Fathers, instead, meditating on the Beatitude "Blessed are the Pure in Heart, for they shall see God" teach of cleansing the heart, as Christ taught (Mat. 15:)

Quote

1 Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2 "Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat." 3 He answered them, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die.' 5 But you say, 'If any one tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is given to God, he need not honor his father.' 6 So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God. 7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: 8 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 9 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.'" 10 And he called the people to him and said to them, "Hear and understand: 11 not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man." 12 Then the disciples came and said to him, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?" 13 He answered, "Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. 14 Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit." 15 But Peter said to him, "Explain the parable to us." 16 And he said, "Are you also still without understanding? 17 Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and so passes on? 18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a man. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man."...23:1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. 4 They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger. 5 They do all their deeds to be seen by men; for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, 6 and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, 7 and salutations in the market places, and being called rabbi by men. 8 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. 9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10 Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ. 11 He who is greatest among you shall be your servant; 12 whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. 13 "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in. 14 "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, even while for a pretence you make long prayers: therefore you shall receive greater condemnation."15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves. 16 "Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'If any one swears by the temple, it is nothing; but if any one swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' 17 You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? 18 And you say, 'If any one swears by the altar, it is nothing; but if any one swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.' 19 You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 So he who swears by the altar, swears by it and by everything on it; 21 and he who swears by the temple, swears by it and by him who dwells in it; 22 and he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it. 23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. 24 You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! 25 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you cleanse the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of extortion and rapacity. 26 You blind Pharisee! first cleanse the inside of the cup and of the plate, that the outside also may be clean. 27 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. 28 So you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. 29 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30 saying, 'If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' 31 Thus you witness against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. 33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? 34 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, 35 that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechari'ah the son of Barachi'ah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 36 Truly, I say to you, all this will come upon this generation. 37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! 38 Behold, your house is forsaken and desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'"

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

It's common knowledge that Egypt was Islamized mainly due to conversion rather than immigration, so the burden of proof in on you.

Common knowledge, or urban legend? What sort of sources do you have for this "common knowledge?"

Quote

But the fact is, Genetic studies show that no genetic shift occurred in Egypt.

What genetic studies? Do you have unbiased, scientific sources from multiple attestations within the genetic scientific field? If you know of such studies, can you point them out? Mind you, since now you're dealing with specific historical and scientific claims, you must find sources that are accepted by the historic and scientific fields at large, and not just one or two guys who claim something out of thin air. Anyone can find a couple scientists who will say anything...even that the earth is flat. I mean, in America we have one or two scientists who claim weird things...but are they published in scientific journals? Has their work been critiqued? Falsified? Verified? Are your sources declaring mere hypothesis or theories? If it's a theory, what is the body of evidence that verifies it? Is it testable? Or is it merely "wishful thinking" on the part of some people of a certain national, ethnic and religious bent, to claim what you are now claiming. It sounds to me more like mythologizing history than actual history to me. Which is why I ask for sources. And keep in mind they must be sources everyone here will be willing to accept. (ie: quoting some Islamic apologetics website won't do it, you'll need to link to scientific websites that are not under religious organization out to defend the faith)

So you said you are convinced the da'wah is doing fine in Africa. I have no vested interest in convincing you otherwise. I know what I know. The Orthodox Church had not spread as fast nor as far as I'd like, but I want the whole continent baptized by the heir of the preaching of St. Mark (the Christian equivalent of 'Amr b. 'As, except St. Mark came from Africa and came without a sword). So it's all relative to me.

I have made it quite clear that I'm anti-modern, anti-humanist and most certainly anti-pacifist in doctrine, so you can drop the sword thing,

LOL. The idea is that you drop the sword thing. I have other instructions. John 18:11.

The problem of appealing to the sword to spread your faith, is that it depends on your grip on the sword. It also calls into question the motives of your converts," the issue which you supposedly say is most important in Islam, hadith #1.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

2. "While we were one day sitting with the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam, there appeared before us a man dressed in extremely white clothes and with very black hair. No traces of journeying were visible on him, and none of us knew him.

He sat down close by the Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam, rested his knee against his thighs, and said, O Muhammad! Inform me about Islam." Said the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam, "Islam is that you should testify that there is no deity save Allah and that Muhammad is His Messenger, that you should perform salah (ritual prayer), pay the zakah, fast during Ramadan, and perform Hajj (pilgrimage) to the House (the Ka'bah at Makkah), if you can find a way to it (or find the means for making the journey to it)." Said he (the man), "You have spoken truly."

We were astonished at his thus questioning him and telling him that he was right, but he went on to say, "Inform me about iman (faith)." He (the Messenger of Allah) answered, "It is that you believe in Allah and His angels and His Books and His Messengers and in the Last Day, and in fate (qadar), both in its good and in its evil aspects." He said, "You have spoken truly."

Then he (the man) said, "Inform me about Ihsan." He (the Messenger of Allah) answered, " It is that you should serve Allah as though you could see Him, for though you cannot see Him yet He sees you." He said, "Inform me about the Hour." He (the Messenger of Allah) said, "About that the one questioned knows no more than the questioner." So he said, "Well, inform me about the signs thereof (i.e. of its coming)." Said he, "They are that the slave-girl will give birth to her mistress, that you will see the barefooted ones, the naked, the destitute, the herdsmen of the sheep (competing with each other) in raising lofty buildings." Thereupon the man went off.

I waited a while, and then he (the Messenger of Allah) said, "O 'Umar, do you know who that questioner was?" I replied, "Allah and His Messenger know better." He said, "That was Jibril. He came to teach you your religion.""

Jibril, btw, is what Muslims call Gabriel. They also call him the holy spirit (and say we are confused on that matter).

The first part give the Creed of Islam, and its sacraments/mysteries. Islam is not submission to God, but professing the prophethood of Muhammad, which of course no Christian can accept.

To start on why that is so, perhaps I should post the renunciation part of the reception of Muslims (called Mahomtan in Hapgood):

Quote

The Mahometan renounceth: The Mahometan faith, and its Sophistries ; Mahomet, as being a false prophet; the Koran and all false legends, laws and traditions therein contained; the pilgrimage to Mecca for worship, as salutary to the soul; the inculcation of polygamy in this life, and the teaching; as to sensual pleasures in Paradise; and the blasphemies which Mahometans utter touching Christ our Saviour, his most holy Mother, and Christians.

(He accepteth all the points set forth for the Jew, and in addition the belief that the Holy Scriptures contained in the Old and New Testaments, as' accepted by the Church, are the Word of God, given for our salvation, and were written by the holy men of God who were illumined by the Holy Spirit; that the traditions,regulations and prayers which have come down from the Apostles and the holy Fathers of the Church are salutary for the soul; and that the Apostles, Martyrs, and all the Saints revered by the Holy Church are, in very truth, Saints of God, abide with Christ in the kingdom of heaven, and pray for us sinners. He also professeth belief touching the holy images (see page 459) required from all converts.)

The points "set forth for the Jew" refered to:

Quote

(The Jew accepteth the belief: That the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God, divided in three Persons, but in Essence undivided; that Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin. Mary for the sake of our salvation, and became very man, yet remaining very God, one in Essence, but in two Persons, divine and human ; that our Lord Jesus Christ, of his own free will, in very truth, and not in appearance only, suffered for us in the flesh, but not in his divinity, and, having died and been buried as man, rose again by virtue of his divinity, and ascended into heaven in the flesh; that the Virgin Mary was and remained truly Virgin, and therefore is worthy of reverence as the chief intercessor for us with God; and that the Cross of Christ was the instrument and emblem of our salvation.)

And "touching the holy images":

Quote

Bishop: Dost thou confess that the images of our Saviour Christ; and of the Ever-virgin Mother of God, and of the other Saints are worthy of being owned, held and honoured; not unto idolatry, but that, through contemplation thereof, we may be incited unto piety, and unto emulation of the righteous deeds represented by these images ?

As such, since the Muslim is required to renounce the Hajj to receive baptism, that to say it is necessary is not to have "spoken truly." This has been a subject of dispute from the very beginning of Islam's appearance (odd, since the Muslim tradition says an Ethiopia Christian rebuilt it for the pagans Meccans in Muhammad's day, and it had an icon of the Theotokos, which Muhammad left after destroying all the idols in the Ka'bah at the conquest of Mecca). As St. John of Damascus (whose grandfather represented the populace to the conquering Caliph. St. John himself was born in rein of Mu'awiyah, who established the caliphate at Damascus, and was a frequent figure at the court untill he retired to the Monastery of St. Sabas in Palestine), says:

Quote

They furthermore accuse us of being idolaters, because we venerate the cross, which they abominate. And we answer them: ‘How is it, then, that you rub yourselves against a stone in your Ka’ba and kiss and embrace it?’ Then some of them say that Abraham had relations with Agar upon it, but others say that he tied the camel to it, when he was going to sacrifice Isaac. And we answer them: ‘Since Scripture says that the mountain was wooded and had trees from which Abraham cut wood for the holocaust and laid it upon Isaac, and then he left the asses behind with the two young men, why talk nonsense? For in that place neither is it thick with trees nor is there passage for asses.’ And they are embarrassed, but they still assert that the stone is Abraham’s. Then we say: ‘Let it be Abraham’s, as you so foolishly say. Then, just because Abraham had relations with a woman on it or tied a camel to it, you are not ashamed to kiss it, yet you blame us for venerating the cross of Christ by which the power of the demons and the deceit of the Devil was destroyed.’ This stone that they talk about is a head of that Aphrodite whom they used to worship and whom they called Khabár. Even to the present day, traces of the carving are visible on it to careful observers.

We of course do not have a problem with the idea of pilgrimage in and of itself, except perhaps the idea of elevating it to a sacrement/Holy Mystery, as we worship in Spirit and Truth, and not on any mountain. John 4:19-24. Mt. Arafat has not replaced, nor Moriah, nor Zion, nor Calvary. Nor even Mt. Gerezim. The Rock uncut by human hands has struck done the idol and become the great mountain and filled all the earth. (Daniel 2:34-5) Calvary has become the mount of Paradise. Thus before the Cross that stood on it we bow down in worship, not to Mecca's Ka'bah with its Black Rock.

The problem with the Hajj (which just means "pilgrimage" btw, a Hebrew cognate), is that it commemorates an event (the sacrifice of Isaac), which didn't happen there. In fact, it happened at Mt. Moriah/Zion, where Melchizedek, the type of Christ as High priest, King of Salem, worshipped. In other words, to go to Mecca is to deny the Biblical account and all that it stands for (read Hebrews). There Christ was raised on the Cross as the sacrifice promised Abraham, and there the Mystical Supper was instituted for us to partake of that sacrifice. The Muslims sacrifice a lamb on the last day of the Hajj in imitation of this: I'm torn as to whether to partake of it would be like eathing the Jews' passover.

To be cont....

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth